There’s been an uptick in casual conversations about filming and in inquiries. Some clients want to capture the moment “just for themselves.” Others talk about being a "stunt dick" for clips to OnlyFans or sites based abroad, thinking that geography or discretion makes it okay. So let’s clear this up:

 
No matter the country, platform, or level of privacy you think you’re maintaining, if there’s no signed model release, it’s not legal to share, post, or profit from the content. Here’s why:

 
1. 18 U.S. Code § 2257 Compliance (aka “2257 regulations”)
If you film any explicit content with the intent to share, you’re required by U.S. federal law to maintain proper age verification records and model releases. It doesn’t matter if you’re a solo creator or filming abroad, if it touches a U.S.-based audience or platform (which 99% of content will), you’re on the hook.
More here from the DOJ (https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/18-usc-2257-recordkeeping-requirements-compliance)

 
2. Platform Terms of Service (TOS):
Major platforms like OnlyFans, ManyVids, Pornhub, and Fansly require you to submit a signed model release from every person appearing in the content even if they’re “not shown” (re: face is blurred or you can only hear their voice) or it’s “just for subscribers.” If you upload content without this, they can remove your account and, depending on the circumstances, report you.
• OnlyFans TOS (https://onlyfans.com/terms) (see Section 5 and 6)
• ManyVids Performer Agreement (https://www.manyvids.com/Content/terms/)
• Pornhub Model Program Requirements (https://help.pornhub.com/hc/en-us/articles/360036011274-Model-Verification-Process)

 
When a Creator films without a release, whether they are the client or the SWer:
• The Creator risks violating revenge porn laws (many states now have serious penalties).
• The Creator can be reported to platforms, banned, or even sued.
• The Creator may unintentionally expose someone, including themselves to harm, stalking, blackmail, or career-damaging leaks.
• The Creator, should they be a SWer and not a client, is putting their brand and income in jeopardy.

 
A few common myths:
•  “We’re overseas, so we don’t need a release.” Unequivocally false. Many international platforms still follow 2257 AND/or require compliance with local consent laws.
•  “I’m not showing faces.” That doesn’t make it legal.
•  “It’s just for me.” That doesn’t eliminate the need for consent or documentation to protect BOTH parties.  

 
At the end of the day, filming without proper documentation isn't just a bad look, it's a legal liability. If you're genuinely interested in creating content, approach it like a professional would: with transparency, respect, and the desire to do what's best to keep both parties safe.

Just so I understand better where you are coming from. You are talking about legal framework for filming within the broader context of P4P- which in and of itself is illegal in most of the United States of America.  

 
So what legal recourse does a plaintiff (in this case a provider) has if they want to sue a defendant (in this case a monger), who  taped her without consent.  Isn't this akin to a thief hurting himself during a burglary, and then blaming the home owner for not mopping the water off the floor.

 
P.S. Certain providers should make a note as to what an interesting topic looks like. And barring a few exceptions, largely simp men who can barely wipe drool off their face whenever they see someone of other gender, and will bend backwards to score brownie points, most of the seasoned mongers would prefer a quality post like this over some mindless nonsense that gets posted here.

-- Modified on 5/15/2025 9:59:39 AM

Sure, if she blurts out “he was paying me for sex” she may be SOL. I would imagine if she wanted to take legal action, she would avoid this detail. I’m sure it can be extracted in court somehow. But that only works if the client decides to divulge that part. Not sure it helps the client much either to admit that detail. In all likelihood, any decent lawyers will try to come to a settlement. The question is whether settling gets him off the hook because he was paying for sex or not. I’m no lawyer, but my interpretation is they’re both guilty of illegally paid sex. But only he is guilty of illegally filming her. If bluffs are called, he has more to lose.

Filming without consent is a felony.  Distribution without consent is another felony.  It falls under the same laws as revenge porn.

If you are interested in filming I suggest you get a video of her first consenting to the entire thing.  If she's not willing to sign a contract with her real name.

Recourse, if someone filmed you without your consent is to make sure you have good proof.  If it's on their Only Fans, etc, get screen capture software to show the porn.

Then contact the police stating you did not give consent and want to press charges.

Then contact every site the porn is on and demand it be removed immediately.  Also demand to know whatever financial arrangements and payments have been provided to the person owning the page.  If they do not provide it, the information will be subpoenaed.  

Then call a lawyer.  Let your lawyer do everything else.  They will usually work on a contingency, meaning you pay a small retainer and they get 1/3-1/2 of the final settlement depending on how far it goes.  The platform will probably settle quickly once you establish the content creator did not maintain proper image release forms or pay you for the content.

from personal experience that carries any weight is "I'm no lawyer."   A filming case is a Civil Case, and about money sought by the aggrieved party.  Violations of criminal statutes concerning filming is a criminal case.  Criminal cases are given priority over a competing Civil case, and the Civil case will likely be stayed by the civil court until the criminal case plays out.  If the defendant is found guilty in a criminal case, the civil case is likely a slam dunk, but from a practical standpoint, any money that might be gained from enforcement of a civil judgement has probably already been spent on attorneys fees in the criminal case, and he will have no income while sitting in prison.  If the defendant is found innocent criminally, an aggrieved party may still sue Civilly and win a monetary judgment, which has a lower standard of proof, but then the challenge is collecting on the judgment.  Best example of this is the OJ Simpson case; criminally innocent, but civilly liable for monetary damages which the plaintiffs are still trying to collect from OJ's estate.

Civil cases are settled with money between the parties, while Criminal cases can only be settled between the defendant and the prosecutor.  Whether or not they are both guilty of illegally paid sex is a separate triable issue.  Naturally, they are BOTH going to claim they money was for the filming, not the sex, which creates reasonable doubt.  In the absence of documentation to the contrary, the next best evidence would be oral testimony, and if the adversarial parties are both testifying to the same set of facts, there is no case for prosecution.   Accordingly, your interpretation is bananas.  I wouldn't rely too much on "bluffing" if you find yourself in this situation.

Well, I will give you credit, at least this time you stayed on topic and didn’t make it about my alias and the fact it doesn’t allow you to see my reviews.

 
And, not really that bananas if you understand what I was referencing by bluff. The bluff is, if she says she is coming after him, and he says if you do I will divulge that you allowed me to pay for sex and you’re an escort. I’m sure some providers would fall for this one. Now, it could be for various reasons and not just because they’re afraid of legal action. Maybe they don’t want their business out there? And, this threat from the guy could very well be a bluff. Not 100% guarantee, because some might actually follow through and take the if I am going down, you’re coming with me route. But I would imagine most wouldn’t since it is also outing themselves.

you will also learn that when there is a bust involving a provider and a John, prosecutors tend to go harder on the John, because it has long been the policy of various Justice departments that if you kill the market, the provider has no one to sell to.  Even though you have doubled down on your suggestion of bluffing, if the John is facing more stringent penalties, the bluff is worthless.    The only guarantee that is 100% in this situation is that any guy who tries this is a complete moron.  The provider is more likely to say, "Go ahead, take your best shot.  We can call the district attorney together right now."

 
If you would listen and learn, you would not keep making a fool of yourself commenting on topics you know nothing about, like this one.

Couldn’t last a second response without saying something that is both wrong and stupid. Your entire resume is robotic experiences followed by robotic reviews with Kgirls. You keep acting like you’re king shit, but what comes out of your mouth is actually pretty stupid.

 
In a sting, it can be far worse for the provider. A client is more likely to be hit with one offense, which is a misdemeanor charge. Certainly, if their are records that can be validated, which isn’t easy, it’s not impossible that a client can be hit with multiple charges. The escort however is much more likely to be hit with multiple charges. Multiple charges is a felony offense and the penalties are much harsher.

 
But hey, sit there on your high horse and act like you know more than everyone else on this board.

the subject to a sting on a provider only.   Just so you know, it's almost impossible for a sting to target a provider AND a john at the same time.  They either target Johns, using a policewoman decoy, or they target providers, using an undercover vice officer posing as a customer.  In a sting, how do they charge a provider with multiple offenses?  She is only arrested for falling into the sting once.  Likewise, explain the legal theory how a John can get hit for multiple charges by showing up at a decoy sting?  Each time you post, you show you are less knowledgeable about prostitution and law enforcement.  

 
Once again, you are completely wrong.  No provider can be charged with multiple offenses when caught in a single sting.  Do you realize how stupid you sound?  You are so inexperienced in P4P, you pose a danger to yourself and anyone who takes your insane advice.   You should change your alias to, "heshitsheloses."  

 
Lastly, you are an alias with NO reviews.  Do you see the irony in you criticizing ANYONE ELSE'S reviews.  You are a complete moron when it comes to P4P.  You should stay in your lane . . . . the no-review and no-experience lane.  Step back a little, my high horse is shitting on your Vans.  Lol

Typical, CDL. Doesn’t understand a reference and takes everything literal. You think I changed the subject to a sting because that’s how your small brain works. The same brain that needs a formula to write hundreds of reviews. Nothing is original with you. There is no sign of thought in your pee brain.

 
The topic is absolutely not a sting. That’s what’s called an example. I used that example because they are more real than a tattle tale in a dispute over a client recording the provider without consent. You literal dummy.

 
Now, of course if an actual sting is set up, there is a primary target. Since you dug in this way. A sting on an operation, like an agency, makes the most sense. That’s the most likely way to get them on multiple charges - a felony offense. The escorts are repeat offenders. The clients in this case aren’t being tracked the same. They’re only fucked if the agency has records that damns them. The sting on guys is less common. It’s a misdemeanor. They’re more likely to go after peds.

 
But back on topic. His threat is to expose her as an escort who does this for a living. In this particular case, he is leas likely to have seen her more than once, and she is highly unlikely to have any information about him seeing other escorts. While he may only have seen her once, he probably can point to ads and online activity to point out she has made this a business and this wasn’t a one time thing. Her risk is without a doubt bigger in the escort part.

 
The funny thing is I was humble enough to begin by admitting I am no lawyer. That’s still true. And you can certainly poke holes in my ideas. But you flaunt that I admitted that as if that was the only thing of value, then arrogantly act like you know the law as well as a lawyer, when your idiot brain isn’t one either.

 
And of course Mr. Haven’t Reviewed in 2 1/2 years, and even when I did they were all fake, is back to where it all began. It’s nice to see you volunteered to be TER’s own Village Idiot. Keep up the good work, CDLOL.

Thanks to those who engaged thoughtfully, especially those who brought clarity around the differences between civil and criminal law. I want to circle back to the core point of this thread.  

 
Regardless of whether the broader context involves an illegal act (P4P), the act of filming without consent and especially distributing or monetizing that content is a separate and serious offense under both civil and criminal statutes. These are not mutually exclusive legal realms. Yes, it’s possible to sue even if the encounter was transactional. Civil courts deal in damages, not criminal morality. And while some providers may choose not to pursue legal action to maintain privacy, that doesn’t mean the law would not side with them if they did. And I really want to focus on  

 
To clarify some misinformation:

 
• Bluffing about “outing” someone as a defense?  It assumes she’ll fold out of fear, but guess what? Most providers I know have thicker skin and better legal advice than the average board poster. Also, it's not only cowardly, it’s weak legally. Courts are not interested in tit-for-tat confessions. Threatening exposure only confirms who’s really desperate and courts see right through it. Prosecutors are more likely to go after the person who violated consent and privacy laws than the one who is the Sex Worker.  

 
• Claiming the content was paid for, not the sex? That’s a reach if you don't have the signed model release and ID verification per 2257 and platform TOS.

 
• Spy cams and hidden cameras are a growing problem.
There’s been a noticeable uptick in providers reporting clients trying to film them without consent using concealed devices. Some of that footage is even showing up on private, niche platforms. But here’s the twist: those platforms are being found. Because if anyone is a world-class gossip, it’s not women, it’s men. Bragging in group chats, “private” message boards, etc... it gets out. Someone always wants clout, someone always leaks the link, and then someone sends it to her inbox or an internet savvy escort finds it. That’s when lawyers, police, and platform admins get involved.

 
At the end of the day, this is about setting clear ethical and legal standards for interaction, especially when cameras are involved. If you’re filming, get it in writing. If you’re not, don’t do it. It’s really that simple.

I just want to say, thanks & well done to the OP, Paige, for this interesting and informative thread.  The relevance is obvious in today's tech driven world, and her insight is compelling.   I read the whole thread, including the many varied and divergent replies...!  

One thing that struck me was the Sub-topic/Side topic of hidden cameras, and the efforts of staying 'Unphotographed" by providers who want to remain anonymous or hidden in terms of their face and identity (for whatever reasons)....
With modern advances in technology and in hidden cameras, it is more difficult than ever to remain unphotographed, anonymous  and hidden.  PLUS....the sheer number of surveillance, security and regular business cameras in ALL aspects of everyday life now make it very likely that even the most careful provider has been captured in a photograph by a client or someone unknown to her.

I thought about this on my last date with a provider (who happened to be EXTREMELY paranoid and stringent about keeping her face hidden on the HUNDREDS of photos she has online via her social media pages, and the countless escorting websites she advertises on....it seemed to me she was actively working AGAINST her stated goal of staying hidden...)   I was literally imagining the different ways and methods someone could, if he was an asshole with bad intentions, capture her photo without her ever even knowing....and none of these methods involved using  a "hidden camera" or tiny obscure cameras (which, in today's ever evolving tech world, are harder to find than ever!)

I posted about 2257 a few days ago in a related thread  
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/ter-general-board-12/in-the-usa-its-the-2257-laws-1032732
but Paige provided much more info.
.
In particular, I wanted to ask (for purposes of clarification and emphasis) about the 2257 requirements and the private website requirements. Basically: you need MORE than just a signed model release?  
.
Q: Is this correct? For 2257 and the Feds, you must collect and maintain the model release as well as proof of DoB and whatever else 2257 calls for.  But you only need to maintain the records in a designated place ("Custodian of Records" in the porn credits), if needed by LE. A signed model release alone is not enough.
.
(There are websites with various downloadable 2257 forms. They are all different but, presumably compliant with boxes, lines and spaces for all of the required info.)
.
Q: Is this correct? Once you choose to go public with the photos / videos, you have to provide the necessary forms to the "vendors" (pornhub, OF, etc.) who will present the photos / videos for viewing BEFORE they will do so. That means a model release and other papers: proof of DoB, etc.. And otherwise comply with THEIR rules.
.
Last thing for now, netnoy  posted, "If you are interested in filming I suggest you get a video of her first consenting to the entire thing.  If she's not willing to sign a contract with her real name." Years ago, I read that porn pros sometimes get a video consent that ALSO proves that the actor/actress is sober, not under duress, etc.. That seems like a reasonable way to protect against someone protesting that they were forced to sign a form or were stoned at the time. What I don't know is if a VIDEO consent is acceptable as a *replacement* for a signed model release or just a *supplement* to a signed model release. Anybody?

The threat in your scenario is empty.  When the John tells the DA that she is a prostitute and does this for a living, her response is to show your emails and text messages soliciting sex from her for money.  She's going to tell the truth . . . . "You contacted her out of the blue, she didn't know you, and you asked to have sex with her for money."  She gets charged for prostitution, but you get charged for solicitation.   You should look up which one carries the stiffer penalties before you recommend to others here that they try this "bluff."  It will go south very fast.  

 
You are also forgetting that with the solicitation charge, you will get your photo on the internet as a sex customer charged with solicitation, but she already has a website advertising herself as an escort, so which one of you will have your life destroyed by your advice to threaten her?   Since you are already the most paranoid member here about anyone finding out who you are, I assume you may have a wife and family which will become collateral damage when you try to threaten a provider with reporting her to the police.  

 
You're wrong again about stings on agencies.  I have attached a link below to a recent thread on the Kgirl board about an agency bust in Boston where many of the customers are being charged as well as the agency owners.  Ironically, the ladies involved were not charged at all, much less for "multiple offenses" as you claimed they would be.  You are also dead wrong about the stings on Johns happening less often.  Where did you get that idea?  Solicitation by a John is a felony in many jurisdictions.   Here are photos of SOME of the prostitution busts in California in 2024.  Note there are more men than women in the photos.  (YOU, too, can have your picture on a board like this.)  Still think you should threaten a provider with LE?  

 
http://search.aol.com/aol/image;_ylt=Awr48onnJyhoKeQPhEhpCWVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?q=men+caught+in+prostitution+stings+in+California+in+2024&v_t=comsearch

 
If I may borrow a phrase from Nicky, "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."  You really are making this too easy to expose your lack of knowledge and experience.  Maybe you watch too many cop shows on TV.

END OF MESSAGE

My comment on getting video of her consenting to recording is if you are recording for private use only.  Many girls offer video for a fee.  I would get it recorded where she says yes to it.  Ideally without stoppage.  Meaning at the start, she says yes, film me and you go straight into it.

If you plan to distribute, or put on a website, you will need proper documentation.  Forms filled out.  Proof of her age, picture of her ID, copy of the contract, proof that she was paid for her work.  I would keep everything on hand for a minimum of three years past the time the video/pics are no longer posted on any site that you have any control over.

Now, did you seriously think I was suggesting a guy use this bluff? Or, is this classic CDLOL twisting words? Quite the opposite dumb dumb. I was pointing out a guy may try to use it. I was pointing out it’s a bluff, an empty threat. And, some may fall for it. I imagine the more savvy escorts wouldn’t.

 
And I am very familiar with the Boston case. That was an agency that kept records. These guys are SOL not because they were caught on site, because the records show they came back again and again. That agency is stupid. I already addressed this possibility. Whether your an agency or independent, keeping records like this can really screw your clients. Personally, it’s why I am more concerned with agencies. A ring of escorts is always going to be more likely to attract law enforcement than an independent.

 
The beauty of the link to pictures is it’s literally not sourced to anything reliable. There is no background to these cases. It’s not proof of anything. And your dumbass who religiously sees kgirls is much more likely to end up on that wall.

 
And as for stings on guys, as I already mentioned, those tend to be more peds. I’m betting a good number of those guys were contacting who they thought were underage girls. I’m glad they got busted if they were. Because that’s disgusting. But since your link is just a picture gallery, can’t really prove what these dudes were busted for.  

 
And, and tell me this, is an escort ad not a solicitation? Because dudes usually aren’t contacting random women offering money for sex. They are contacting women who are advertising it. This is really a stupid argument though. Everyone is at risk with illegal activities. The obvious greatest crime in OP’s original message is filming and distributing. There is no question there. But you’re a troll who likes to start shit.

I’m going to gently push back with a different perspective that's focused on risk mitigation and long-term protection, especially for Providers.

 
If filming is on the table, Clients should not be recording on their personal devices. If you want content, the Provider should be the one filming it on their equipment, with their settings, and their control. That way, they’re the one editing, watermarking, digitally fingerprinting, and determining what version gets shared. The digital fingerprinting is key because it embeds a unique, trackable ID into the video file kind of like a digital serial number. Even if the content gets re-uploaded, chopped up, renamed, or reposted anonymously, that fingerprint allows you to trace where and when it pops up. It’s crucial if legal action ever needs to be taken or if a takedown request needs to be filed with hosting platforms. Digital fingerprinting should be done for all filming regardless.  

 
The Provider will ensure the Client receives a copy by an agreed upon date/timeline (re: 10-15 business days after the appointment). The Client receives a secured file that’s been legally and digitally marked. The Client will have almost all of the footage but not editing rights nor access to clips that could later be taken out of context or weaponized.  

 
A Provider can take it a step further and submit it to the USPTO. It’s a sneaky little insurance policy. If that clip ever surfaces online without permission, the Provider will have the receipts to go after damages... hard. Consent isn’t just verbal. It's procedural. It’s thoughtful. It’s trackable. And if the vibe is off about any of this, the answer is no. Period.

You aren't the first person to mention his lack of reviews in the last 2 1/2 years.  He curiously never responds to this aspect.  I guess his ED is an embarrassing topic.

I am asking for more knowledgeable correction of anything I'm saying here.  
"A model release is essential!" but maybe not sufficient. There is a BIG diff between some PG, PG-13, or R photos of a friend, neighbor, or complete stranger and XXX. Anybody remember the photo of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square on VJ Day by Alfred Eisenstaedt? I'm guessing that there was no model release. (They still don't know with certainty the names of the couple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square )
.
You take some snaps of some cute girls drinking Pepsi at the zoo and want to use the photo in a Pepsi commercial. You need a model release from each of them to prevent being sued for an unlawful use of their images as an implied endorsement of Pepsi. Maybe they hate Pepsi but it was the only soda sold at the zoo (by paid arrangement between Pepsi and the zoo that gets money from Pepsi for the exclusive soda rights.)  I am GUESSING that a legal model release is all that is required (payment contracts are separate): no DoB required, no gov photo ID required, [SSN required if getting paid], etc..
.
(When I was in grade school, we had a class trip to the zoo. A pro photographer secretly was taking pics without getting permission or telling anyone in advance. Immediately afterwards (still at the zoo), he gave his biz card to the teacher and chaperones and some of the kids. At least one of my F classmates' parents contacted and met the photog, got some free pro-quality prints, and might have had a few more modeling shoots. (I only saw the zoo photos, no others.) She remained normal and did not go on to become a supermodel or celebrity.)  
.
If you are recording XXX material, THEN you need to have a model release AND several other documents to prove that everything is legal: DoB, copy of gov photo ID, MAYBE a statement about sober consent, and free will consent for use in certain ways (public display on Pornhub, OF, etc..)

Essential but maybe not sufficient!
.
EDIT: typos

-- Modified on 5/17/2025 9:00:55 AM